Your talking points themselves are all the evidence we need. You don’t disagree with Trump on anything. Like all the Hillary stuff. “She deleted the emails that were under subpoena”. Provably wrong, but Trump said it so you believe it and spew it.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:17 am Yeah. You’ve said that before and yet you repeatedly failed to back it up. You aren’t any better or more factual with your “gleaning” than you are with telling the truth.![]()
![]()
![]()
The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
The only thing this protects is the rich.
Again, President Washington disagreed with you.
The Supreme Court that gave us that decision in 1895 is the same court that gave us the 1883 Civil Rights Cases and Lochner. But that’s the time you want to take us back to, isn’t it?
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
Thank you.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 11:34 pm Yeah. We all got opinions. You have yours. I have mine. I guess soon we will learn what SCOTUS thinks. We shall see.
I see you noted that SCOTUS decisions are their personal opinions. They are not based upon “interpreting” the constitution which so-called originalist claim to hate. Such a claim is nonsense. The decisions are the personal opinions of the justices which automatically and of necessity includes their own internal biases. If the justices don’t like a particular piece of legislation they simply wave their magic wand and it disappears. Oh, I grant that they couch things in fancy legalese but the bottom line is the decision is personal bias. Which, btw, doesn’t always mean that said opinions are always bad. They can be good, bad and anywhere in between. What it does mean is that the opinions have no constitutional basis unless the case has to do with the three things forbidden by the original document and the other issues listed in various amendments.
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
Fantastic post, Bird.bird wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 10:12 am Thank you.
I see you noted that SCOTUS decisions are their personal opinions. They are not based upon “interpreting” the constitution which so-called originalist claim to hate. Such a claim is nonsense. The decisions are the personal opinions of the justices which automatically and of necessity includes their own internal biases. If the justices don’t like a particular piece of legislation they simply wave their magic wand and it disappears. Oh, I grant that they couch things in fancy legalese but the bottom line is the decision is personal bias. Which, btw, doesn’t always mean that said opinions are always bad. They can be good, bad and anywhere in between. What it does mean is that the opinions have no constitutional basis unless the case has to do with the three things forbidden by the original document and the other issues listed in various amendments.
I think our conservatives probably love the 1895 decision, and would like to see the 16th Amendment repealed, if they told the truth. They just hate all taxes and think we should run the country for free. But as soon as they can, they get on the nanny state train and sign right up for Social Security and Medicare.
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
Personal opinions can be based on many things Bird. I would hope the Justices opinions on the constitutionality of an issue are based on their interpretation and knowledge of the constitution and the law. If they form their opinions based on that then I would say they do have a constitutional basis. Any decision made by man can be biased to some degree. Good judges are often able to set aside their personal bias and make decisions based on the law and the facts of the case. That’s what we pay them to do. That’s part of their job. Some are better at it than others.bird wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 10:12 am Thank you.
I see you noted that SCOTUS decisions are their personal opinions. They are not based upon “interpreting” the constitution which so-called originalist claim to hate. Such a claim is nonsense. The decisions are the personal opinions of the justices which automatically and of necessity includes their own internal biases. If the justices don’t like a particular piece of legislation they simply wave their magic wand and it disappears. Oh, I grant that they couch things in fancy legalese but the bottom line is the decision is personal bias. Which, btw, doesn’t always mean that said opinions are always bad. They can be good, bad and anywhere in between. What it does mean is that the opinions have no constitutional basis unless the case has to do with the three things forbidden by the original document and the other issues listed in various amendments.
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
Clarence and Alito have whatever opinions their Sugar Daddies tell them they have.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 11:28 am Personal opinions can be based on many things Bird. I would hope the Justices opinions on the constitutionality of an issue are based on their interpretation and knowledge of the constitution and the law. If they form their opinions based on that then I would say they do have a constitutional basis. Any decision made by man can be biased to some degree. Good judges are often able to set aside their personal bias and make decisions based on the law and the facts of the case. That’s what we pay them to do. That’s part of their job. Some are better at it than others.
You support Thomas, who voted NO in Lawrence V Texas, to keep homosexuality illegal.
So much for your support of gays.
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
Translation: “I’ve got nothin’!”
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
So what do you think of “Originalist” Clarence Thomas voting to keep anti-sodomy laws on the books?
Is that an opinion you respect? Is that the opinion of someone you think should be making his opinion into law?
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
Since the document itself only forbids three things: ex post facto laws, bills of attainder and religious tests to hold office, any case not involving these three things (and issues related to the bill of rights/amendments) obviously becomes a battle of personal opinion and belief structures. An example is the Dodd decision. Alito wrote that the right to an abortion does not appear in the constitution. Setting aside the juvenile statement we must also note that the vast majority of human actions and interactions do not appear in the constitution. As a point of my own opinion, abortion is a fourth amendment issue meaning a person to feel secure in their person. But I digress slightly. You do not have a right to drive a car under the constitution as that human action does not appear there as an example. You do not have a right to do virtually anything including medical procedures using Alito’s logic. No, the fact (imoJoeMemphis wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 11:28 am Personal opinions can be based on many things Bird. I would hope the Justices opinions on the constitutionality of an issue are based on their interpretation and knowledge of the constitution and the law. If they form their opinions based on that then I would say they do have a constitutional basis. Any decision made by man can be biased to some degree. Good judges are often able to set aside their personal bias and make decisions based on the law and the facts of the case. That’s what we pay them to do. That’s part of their job. Some are better at it than others.
The pie-in-the-sky wish that humans no matter who they are will be able to put aside personal bias is simplistic and can be dangerous.
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
I’m not familiar with the case nor am I familiar with his legal reasoning on the matter.
As far as the concept of “originalism”, that is a concept I support to an extent. I heard Scalia explain his opinion/approach when it came to original intent and it made sense to me. I think most judges attempt to follow the law as written and to follow precedent. This is true with both liberal and conservative justices.
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
The Federal Constitution was based on a limited Federal Government, so those things not mentioned in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights are left to the states. So yeah, there are many things states can regulate that cannot be regulated by the Federal Government. Your right to operate a vehicle isn’t a federal issue. It’s a state and local issue. That’s where those laws sit.bird wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:32 pm Since the document itself only forbids three things: ex post facto laws, bills of attainder and religious tests to hold office, any case not involving these three things (and issues related to the bill of rights/amendments) obviously becomes a battle of personal opinion and belief structures. An example is the Dodd decision. Alito wrote that the right to an abortion does not appear in the constitution. Setting aside the juvenile statement we must also note that the vast majority of human actions and interactions do not appear in the constitution. As a point of my own opinion, abortion is a fourth amendment issue meaning a person to feel secure in their person. But I digress slightly. You do not have a right to drive a car under the constitution as that human action does not appear there as an example. You do not have a right to do virtually anything including medical procedures using Alito’s logic. No, the fact (imo) is that the opinions of the justices are their personal opinions, nothing more, nothing less. The citing of various other cases is simply citing other judges personal opinions that happen to mesh with their own.
The pie-in-the-sky wish that humans no matter who they are will be able to put aside personal bias is simplistic and can be dangerous.
In the case of abortion, the court originally interpreted the right to abortion as a privacy right but has been pointed out, there is no such right to privacy in the Constitution. Legal scholars have stated for decades Roe was poorly decided. It might have fared better as an equal protection case. The same is true for gay marriage. Clearly an equal protection issue.
Bottomline, the Federal Government wasn’t engineered to be a strong central government. We are a republic of states. The constitution defined what the Feds could and could not do and the Bill of Rights laid out certain rights that were protected under the constitution. Everything else was to be worked out at the state or local level or was to be passed into law by Congress subject to the Constitution.
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:34 pm I’m not familiar with the case nor am I familiar with his legal reasoning on the matter.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Ah yes, Joe uses targeted ignorance to pretend he doesn’t support Thomas and his homophobia. “Oh, yes I support gays” Joe says - but when confronted with the facts of his hero Clarence Thomas’ vote to keep sodomy illegal in Texas, “I’m not familiar” - and the LAST think Joe will do is BECOME familiar!
Originalism is just plain bullshit. Not if you think slavery shouldn’t exist in America. Not if you think women should have human rights and the right to vote. Not if you think Anyone but land-owning white men should be able to vote. Not if you think the Senate should be a popularly-elected position. I could go on and on.As far as the concept of “originalism”, that is a concept I support to an extent. I heard Scalia explain his opinion/approach when it came to original intent and it made sense to me. I think most judges attempt to follow the law as written and to follow precedent. This is true with both liberal and conservative justices.
If a judge tells you they are an “Originalist” they are telling you that they don’t like our modern world, and wish to take us back to the days when women and black people were chattel.
And maybe you share their view.
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
Funny how Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito doesn’t believe that gays deserve a right to equal protection.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:46 pm The Federal Constitution was based on a limited Federal Government, so those things not mentioned in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights are left to the states. So yeah, there are many things states can regulate that cannot be regulated by the Federal Government. Your right to operate a vehicle isn’t a federal issue. It’s a state and local issue. That’s where those laws sit.
In the case of abortion, the court originally interpreted the right to abortion as a privacy right but has been pointed out, there is no such right to privacy in the Constitution. Legal scholars have stated for decades Roe was poorly decided. It might have fared better as an equal protection case. The same is true for gay marriage. Clearly an equal protection issue.
Bottomline, the Federal Government wasn’t engineered to be a strong central government. We are a republic of states. The constitution defined what the Feds could and could not do and the Bill of Rights laid out certain rights that were protected under the constitution. Everything else was to be worked out at the state or local level or was to be passed into law by Congress subject to the Constitution.
Again for your originalism, for decades the Supreme Court held that the rights in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments weren’t enforceable in the states - which is why the southern states could take away all rights from blacks, and the government couldn’t do anything about it.
Aren’t you proud of that view?
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
The weak central government story is a myth. They had a weak central government with the articles of confederation.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:46 pm The Federal Constitution was based on a limited Federal Government, so those things not mentioned in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights are left to the states. So yeah, there are many things states can regulate that cannot be regulated by the Federal Government. Your right to operate a vehicle isn’t a federal issue. It’s a state and local issue. That’s where those laws sit.
In the case of abortion, the court originally interpreted the right to abortion as a privacy right but has been pointed out, there is no such right to privacy in the Constitution. Legal scholars have stated for decades Roe was poorly decided. It might have fared better as an equal protection case. The same is true for gay marriage. Clearly an equal protection issue.
Bottomline, the Federal Government wasn’t engineered to be a strong central government. We are a republic of states. The constitution defined what the Feds could and could not do and the Bill of Rights laid out certain rights that were protected under the constitution. Everything else was to be worked out at the state or local level or was to be passed into law by Congress subject to the Constitution.
Again, you miss the point. First is that the states are subordinate to the federal government. Despite rhetorical tap-dancing they are not sovereign. Sovereignty implies certain things like issuing treaties and coining money. This also includes that states cannot nullify federal law although I am sure in some cases they try and perhaps have been occasionally successful. So, no, they are not sovereign. Yes, individual states write laws. The problem with the Dobbs decision is that Alito said that abortion does not exist in the constitution. Virtually nothing does exist in the constitution with the exception of some things that are listed in the amendments. By using Alito’s logic Brown v Bd of Ed must be overturned, Loving must be overturned, Obergefell must be overturned, Griswold must be overturned. None of those things appear in the constitution. Indeed Thomas wants to revisit some with the exception of Loving (why would that be one wonders).
The constitution actually grants congress, the executive and judicial branches with virtually unlimited powers. The document itself does this. As noted it forbids exactly three things. The amendments put some additional restraints on but even those can be altered. Speech is not unlimited. Freedom of religion is not unlimited. Freedom to peaceably assemble is not unlimited. And so on. The key power of the federal government is the General Welfare clause. This, of course, leads to a discussion of what is and isn’t General Welfare. When regulation of personal activity devolves to the individual states this opens the door for a variety of confusing, entangled hodge-pudge cobbled together. As a perfect example some state legislatures which have banned abortion are attempting to criminalize travel by women to other states to obtain abortions.
The bottom line is that this SCOTUS opened a massive can of worms with great destructive potential based solely on the personal beliefs of some justices. Alito can’t use the argument that something “isn’t in the constitution” because virtually nothing is.
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
Frankly GoU, I doubt everything you say so I don’t put much stock in your characterization of other people and their views on anything. You constantly lie and distort the opinions of people on this board and I have no doubt you do the same for every public official you happen to hate and I am sure that’s a long list.gounion wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 3:11 pm![]()
![]()
![]()
Ah yes, Joe uses targeted ignorance to pretend he doesn’t support Thomas and his homophobia. “Oh, yes I support gays” Joe says - but when confronted with the facts of his hero Clarence Thomas’ vote to keep sodomy illegal in Texas, “I’m not familiar” - and the LAST think Joe will do is BECOME familiar!
Originalism is just plain bullshit. Not if you think slavery shouldn’t exist in America. Not if you think women should have human rights and the right to vote. Not if you think Anyone but land-owning white men should be able to vote. Not if you think the Senate should be a popularly-elected position. I could go on and on.
If a judge tells you they are an “Originalist” they are telling you that they don’t like our modern world, and wish to take us back to the days when women and black people were chattel.
And maybe you share their view.
As far as the litany of issues you described would still exist in the originalist world, most of those cases would have been decided correctly under the equal protection clause as written. Slavery and race relations, women’s rights, etc. You appear to think everyone and everything that doesn’t fit into your narrow biased world view is therefore evil. It isn’t. You just have a fucked up view of the world and the people in it. You cannot tolerate anyone or anything that doesn’t kiss you ass. People like you are angry all the time and full of hate. Nothing we can do it this world to change that.
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
You're just making excuses with an ad hominem attack to stay ignorant - you don't WANT to know about Lawrence v. Texas, because then you'd have to admit that your heroes Scalia and Thomas voted to keep the anti-sodomy law in Texas. You can't explain it away, or explain why you would support Justices that want to keep these laws in existence. Hence you playing the three monkeys with your hands over your ears, eyes and mouth.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 4:08 pm Frankly GoU, I doubt everything you say so I don’t put much stock in your characterization of other people and their views on anything. You constantly lie and distort the opinions of people on this board and I have no doubt you do the same for every public official you happen to hate and I am sure that’s a long list.
Again, Originalists view the Constitution as it existed when it was written - when all these things were accepted and legal under the Constitution. The Supreme Court changed NONE of these things. WE THE PEOPLE changed those things, many by Amendments - which, by your own originalist views - don't count because they weren't originally there. "Originalists" say only the ORIGINAL Constitution and Bill of Rights count. Not anything else. You want to take it all back to the 1780's and 90's. Some won't even include the Bill of Rights - the Constitution was ratified in 1788, the Bill of Rights in 1790 (more facts I'm sure you were unaware of).As far as the litany of issues you described would still exist in the originalist world, most of those cases would have been decided correctly under the equal protection clause as written. Slavery and race relations, women’s rights, etc. You appear to think everyone and everything that doesn’t fit into your narrow biased world view is therefore evil. It isn’t. You just have a fucked up view of the world and the people in it. You cannot tolerate anyone or anything that doesn’t kiss you ass. People like you are angry all the time and full of hate. Nothing we can do it this world to change that.
And I love this - you're saying these things like slavery AREN'T evil, it's just me slandering them!
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
One thing the right has no ability to do these days is to be tolerant.
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
Nope, Joe, it's not hate. It's all about a sense of fairness and justice. I don't like to see blacks on the ground with a knee to their head until they die. I don't like to see trans children driven to suicide because of all the people who treat them so inhumanly. I strongly believe in right and wrong, and I'll stand up for people that I see being wronged.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 4:08 pm People like you are angry all the time and full of hate. Nothing we can do it this world to change that.
Instead of you guys on the right, that stand up for the rich and stand up for the hate.
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
We simply disagree. Rights not granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution are left to the states. The Federal Government does not have unlimited power.bird wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 3:55 pm The weak central government story is a myth. They had a weak central government with the articles of confederation.
Again, you miss the point. First is that the states are subordinate to the federal government. Despite rhetorical tap-dancing they are not sovereign. Sovereignty implies certain things like issuing treaties and coining money. This also includes that states cannot nullify federal law although I am sure in some cases they try and perhaps have been occasionally successful. So, no, they are not sovereign. Yes, individual states write laws. The problem with the Dobbs decision is that Alito said that abortion does not exist in the constitution. Virtually nothing does exist in the constitution with the exception of some things that are listed in the amendments. By using Alito’s logic Brown v Bd of Ed must be overturned, Loving must be overturned, Obergefell must be overturned, Griswold must be overturned. None of those things appear in the constitution. Indeed Thomas wants to revisit some with the exception of Loving (why would that be one wonders).
The constitution actually grants congress, the executive and judicial branches with virtually unlimited powers. The document itself does this. As noted it forbids exactly three things. The amendments put some additional restraints on but even those can be altered. Speech is not unlimited. Freedom of religion is not unlimited. Freedom to peaceably assemble is not unlimited. And so on. The key power of the federal government is the General Welfare clause. This, of course, leads to a discussion of what is and isn’t General Welfare. When regulation of personal activity devolves to the individual states this opens the door for a variety of confusing, entangled hodge-pudge cobbled together. As a perfect example some state legislatures which have banned abortion are attempting to criminalize travel by women to other states to obtain abortions.
The bottom line is that this SCOTUS opened a massive can of worms with great destructive potential based solely on the personal beliefs of some justices. Alito can’t use the argument that something “isn’t in the constitution” because virtually nothing is.
Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax
You REALLY don’t know what you’re talking about. Too bad you’ve never read the Constitution. You only know what the right has told you about it.JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 6:47 pm We simply disagree. Rights not granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution are left to the states. The Federal Government does not have unlimited power.